If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Nullification is a dirty business. The state rarely prevails. The best result for states versus the federal government was probably the first major one, which I believe was over tariffs. Andrew Jackson got into office and cut a compromise that pacified South Carolina, which had led the charge.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (which said that fugitive slaves caught in the North could be returned to their masters in the South) led to another crisis, as Wisconsin and then Vermont nullified the law. Vermont went so far as to pass a law mandating that local officials help fugitive slaves escape. The Supreme Court overruled Wisconsin but the Vermont nullification was never resolved, as the Civil War -- which in a way was the ultimate nullification crisis -- started a few years later. The Civil Rights era featured a number of crises centering around nullification, obviously. The federal government ultimately forced it's will on several states, especially Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas.

Either way, arresting federal officers would a silly idea, guaranteed to backfire around the country. This all sounds to me like bluster designed for Obama to make a decision on federal enforcement before he does anything. Is he really prepared to send infantry to Wyoming to enforce an executive order?

In practice, jury nullification (local juries ruling in favor of those that defy the federal law) is a better strategy to achieve the desired end. Force the federal government to take the next step. Arresting federal officers is skipping to the end unnecessarily.

Nullification is a dirty business. The state rarely prevails. The best result for states versus the federal government was probably the first major one, which I believe was over tariffs. Andrew Jackson got into office and cut a compromise that pacified South Carolina, which had led the charge.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (which said that fugitive slaves caught in the North could be returned to their masters in the South) led to another crisis, as Wisconsin and then Vermont nullified the law. Vermont went so far as to pass a law mandating that local officials help fugitive slaves escape. The Supreme Court overruled Wisconsin but the Vermont nullification was never resolved, as the Civil War -- which in a way was the ultimate nullification crisis -- started a few years later. The Civil Rights era featured a number of crises centering around nullification, obviously. The federal government ultimately forced it's will on several states, especially Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas.

Either way, arresting federal officers would a silly idea, guaranteed to backfire around the country. This all sounds to me like bluster designed for Obama to make a decision on federal enforcement before he does anything. Is he really prepared to send infantry to Wyoming to enforce an executive order?

In practice, jury nullification (local juries ruling in favor of those that defy the federal law) is a better strategy to achieve the desired end. Force the federal government to take the next step. Arresting federal officers is skipping to the end unnecessarily.

An EO on this issue would be the ultimate backfire.

"Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"

The biggest problem with enforcing the nullification thing is that the states don't have their own militias anymore. As Bush showed, the National Guard is ultimately answerable to the federal government over the state's governor.

The "arresting feds" part probably would never happen but I like the resistance to any unlawful EO Obama and company have planned. It's a shot (no pun intended) across the bow that will let Obama know that these type of unlawful acts won't be tolerated. I'm happy to see states standing up for the Bill of Rights. Hopefully Obama gets the message and backs off. If he doesn't and decides to override the Bill of Rights then he will get what he deserves.

That's good for them. Then Washington should cut funding to Wyoming. Nearly 20% of the State budget is funded by money from the federal coffers. And the disaster aid from 2011 can be paid back as well.
North Dakota too? Nearly 40% of their State budget is federal dollars.

If you can support and sustain yourself you can talk all about sovereignty. Until then you shut up.

That's good for them. Then Washington should cut funding to Wyoming. Nearly 20% of the State budget is funded by money from the federal coffers. And the disaster aid from 2011 can be paid back as well.
North Dakota too? Nearly 40% of their State budget is federal dollars.

If you can support and sustain yourself you can talk all about sovereignty. Until then you shut up.

What about the Bill of Rights????

So if they get money from the feds they should accept any infringement and attack on liberties by the feds???

I think North Dakota already has something similar to this on the books.

The Governors of Wyoming and ND should issue executive orders outlawing nuclear weapons so a deal can be reached...we'll keep guns and the Federal executive office can take all these nuclear missiles and put them in DC, Illinois, and Delaware instead. Will drasticly decrease the amount of public Federal money spent in the state...but private growth should increase in all these areas when there aren't nuclear silos and bomber bases around.

That's good for them. Then Washington should cut funding to Wyoming. Nearly 20% of the State budget is funded by money from the federal coffers. And the disaster aid from 2011 can be paid back as well.
North Dakota too? Nearly 40% of their State budget is federal dollars.

If you can support and sustain yourself you can talk all about sovereignty. Until then you shut up.

So, states aren't allowed to secede, but they are eligible to be kicked out?